Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-02-07

10 be considered into two parts-first, the
fishing rights of the United States, and.
second, the commercial rights of United
States vessels in Canadian ports. The rights
of the former class, he says, are defined by
the treaties of 1873 and 1918, and
"wE DO NOT ASK,
Either of Great Britain or Canada, any
other rights or liberties in taking, drying
or curing fish than those stipulated in such
treaties" In respect to the commercial
privileges for our fishing vessels in Cana
dian ports, the situation is otherwise. Up
to President Jackson's proclamation of Oc-
tober 5, 1880, this Government had no COM
mercial privileges for its vessels in Cana
dian ports. We had such privileges as
Colonists, and we lost them as Colonists
We regained them in 1880 by an arrange
ment of legislation finally concerted with
Great Britain, which was the result of an
international understanding that was in eff
feet, though not technically, treaty.
THE CONTACT OF 1880.
The Secretary then reviews at some
length the history of the relations between
the Governments of the United States and
Great Britain in this respect, from 1888 to
1880. Il am not aware" the Secretary says,
"of any treaty excepting the fishing
clauses of the treaty OF 1878 and the treaty
of 1871, nor of any rule of international law
binding on the United States, which now
constrains Great Britain to commercial in
tercourse with ourselves in Canadian ports.
From the point of view of this Department,
Great Britain can, if she deems
il for her interest, or necessary for
her safety, retreat from the understanding
and agreements of 1880. Whether such
retreat therefrom is to be deemed by the
United States as an unfriendly act will de-
pend on its motives and environments. To
be sure, the arrangement of 1880 was not
in a technical sense, a treaty from the en-
gagements of which neither party can with
draw without the consent of the other am
icably obtained but it was TO be a rule for
two powerful States. 1t was a compact
representing the will and opinions of each.
IT WAS DELIBERATE INTERNATIONAL ACT
It was bargain in which one Govern
ment bought privilege at the price of an
equivalent given to the other. 1t was a
contract solemnized and attested by the
law making instead of the treaty making
powers of the two nations. What we are
now confronted by is the royal assent
given by the Queen in the council on No
vember 26, 1886, to the Canadian Act en-
Illltu All AL III Will
law of 1885, which peremptorily closes
Canadian ports to other fishing vessels seek
ing to trade. 1t empowers any of the there
in designated officials to bring to and
search any American vessel within any
Canadian harbor or ''hovering' in British
waters. This is a revival in Canada
of the theory of the ancient British
"Hovering Act" long ago repealed in the
mother country. If in a search prescribed
and authorized there be found a fishing
vessel lettering in a prohibited place and
fairly suspected of preparing there to fish,
in violation of law, such search, if fairly
and reasonably made, may be tolerated.
Our own customs law prescribes and au-
thorizes similar search of foreign YES
sci even four leagues from our coast, but
the Canadian Act, thus having the royal
approval, was intended (as has been openly
avowed) to forfeit any American fishing
vessel which is found having entered Ca
buy ice bait or other articles, or for any
purpose other than shelter, repairs, wood
or water.
WE STAND on OUR RIGHTS.
The plea is that the treaty OF 1918 per-
mits and stipulates for such legislation.
That we deny, and reply that such legisla-
ton is repealed by the annulment by Eng
land of the arrangement made in 1880, and
TO that repeal we are entitled to respond by
a similar repeal of our own law, and by
a refusal hereafter; and while the de-
bate (or negotiation goes on, to de1er the
hospitality or any privileges whatever i'll
our ports to Canadian vessels or boats, and
any suspension of comfy may be looked
upon as an unfriendly act, but not a cause
for war. England may judge for herself Of
the nature and extent of its comfy and
what courtesy she will show to us in the
present case We do not propose retalia-
ton. We simply respond that we, TOO,
will suspend comfy and hospitality.
AND NOW COMES THE QUESTION,
What shall be the character and limitation
of the response? Shall we only exclude
Canadian fish. such fish and all Canadian
vessels, or both of them, and all merchan-
disc coming from Canada by any sort of
vehicle, including the vehicle? Under what
condition can negotiations go on with the
least injury to ourselves, our dignity and self
respect? | cannot believe that the Gov
eminent at London will presist in its pres
ent course, unless inspired, for some occult
reason, by a purpose to break the friendly
relations with ourselves, or unless under
the will and at the mercy of its colony"